Chrysostom

[Steven Avery]

Please note the ones who don't, and that would not include writers who actually don't quote the verse.

I plan to include those who do not quote Romans 9:5 in any way. That might include Gregory Nazianzen.

As for those who use the verse and do not say "Christ is God over all", it seems to be more common in the Ante-Nicene era. Which is understandable, because there was not a Nicean band-wagon effect.

In fact, you would apparently consider most of those writers as heretics, since they were far from your Orthodox Christianity, with various subordinist views, plus the monarchians, etc.

I will ask you again. Was Irenaeus a heretic?
Try not to do an evasion this time. Thanks.

 

[Steven Avery]

Literally, singular, personal epithet is a succinct statement that covers every point of the rule as expounded by Glassius and Sharp. It is, in fact, more Glassius than Sharp. It's certainly not my own.

Where did Sharp even put "epithet" in his rules?

We are totally in Winter Rules now.

Where did you answer my question about:
Paraclete, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of God?

Which ones are epithets? And why?
Which ones are personal names? And why?

Your rules are simply Absurdity in Action.

 

[Brianrw]

Where did Sharp even put "epithet" in his rules?

It's the word used by Glassius, which is more succinct and to the point than Sharp. English allows a flexibility of expression so that something with the same meaning can be expressed in more than one way. An epithet is a "characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing." Another definition is "the application of a word or phrase to someone that describes that person's attributes and qualities."

These definitions would fall under the umbrella of "nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill" mentioned by Sharp. So I can state the rule in a more succinct fashion. Nothing new is being introduced here by me.

You are just fabricating, onto very sad railing accusations.

You should go back and read what you've been writing.

And why are you fabricating dismissals? It is very tacky. And the scholastic dishonesty there is all on you.

What scholastic dishonesty?

You decided to take an unscholarly route of ignoring quotes that do not fit your confirmation bias. Sad that you took that route.

Which quotes, exactly, did I ignore?

 

[Steven Avery]

Which quotes, exactly, did I ignore?

You WROTE that you were only posting the quotes you liked!

Which ones you did not post, you know.
I pointed out that this is shoddy scholarship, to only post for confirmation bias, when we are trying to do a full survery.

I'm aware of several other quotations, but it's not adequate that there is a quotation only. I noted the clear examples that show how Chrysostom understood the text. How the early writers comment on the verse tells us how they understood the construction, and there is no ambiguities mentioned or present in any of there commentaries.

 

[Steven Avery]

The AV construction literally uses an apposition to preserve the order of the Greek words, so it's interesting you keep fighting me on this. For example, Steven Avery, Administrator extraordinaire is Subject (Steven Avery)-->[identifier comma]-->Appositive (Administrator)-->Postpositive adjective (extraordinaire). The postpositive adjective does not require a comma; you came up with the above requirement on your own. That is manifestly the same English construction you are looking at with "Christ . . . , God blessed forever," where "God" is an appositive to Christ and "blessed" is an adjective in the postpositive position. It is a valid way to translate the predicate nominative from the Greek construction, and in fact the best way to emphasize "over all" and preserve the juxtaposition of "God" and "blessed."

Whether you translate it in English as "God over all, blessed" or "over all, God blessed," there is no difference in meaning. Both refer to Christ as God.

Your examples with Steven Avery and administrator work against you, so I set up a special thread on that issue. (That was on the Granville Sharp attempt, but this one is similar.)

Our administrator and researcher Steven Avery - maybe one person, maybe two
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ry-maybe-one-person-maybe-two.2363/#post-9188

I got tired correcting you in multiple threads (they can be found by searching administrator and or researcher).

Your example was beautiful, because it destroyed your own case!
In one English example, you destroyed any thing that remained of the rule.

==========================

You are simply wrong about the AV English, if it was to show apposition it would need additional words or punctuation. That is why the comma is often added after God, to create the apposition. You make the nonsense claims about commas to get around that simple fact.

There are numerous attacks on the AV for not showing the supposed apposition. James Price of the NKJV is one.

==========================

 

[Brianrw]

You WROTE that you were only posting the quotes you liked!

No, I said I posted quotes that were relevant to the discussion, that demonstrated how he understood the passage. You've misrepresented what I said, accused me of practicing confirmation bias and shoddy scholarship. You've also accused me of concealing information but then never pointed out what relevant information I was concealing.

Had he expressed a meaning contrary to my own, that was relevant to the discussion, I would have posted it as well and not obscured it (as I have also done with the English authors regarding these passages, as I also have done in the evidence for 1 Timothy 3:16). But since he doesn't, I don't see how slandering me in such a way does anything constructive for the discussion.

You, on the other hand, have omitted things contextually (e.g., Chrysostom's homilies on Titus), and even where you "requoted" my passages you removed relevant context (in this thread).

I have, in full, eight places recorded for Chrysostom, in which you'll see I've concealed nothing:

1. Homilies on 1 Corinthians, 20.6 – "Nor yet, if you observe, has he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture uses also often to interchange them; as when it says [viz., of the Son], 'The Lord says unto My Lord;' and again, 'Wherefore God Your God has appointed You;' and, 'Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all.' And in many instances you may see these names changing their places."
   
   
2. On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, 5.2 – You have heard, therefore, that the Father is called Lord. Come now, and let me show you that the Son is called God . . . Paul said: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever, Amen." And again: "No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." And still again: "through the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." And John calls him by the same name of God when he says: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God."
   
   
3. Homily III (IV).3 On the Gospel of John (his comment on the article is valuable to the discussion) – Consider now that the case is the same in this place. He did not use the expression as assigning limits, since he did not say, "had a beginning," but "was in the beginning"; by the word "was" carrying you forward to the idea that the Son is without beginning. "Yet observe," says he, "the Father is named with the addition of the article, but the Son without it." What then, when the Apostle says [viz., of the Son], "The Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13); and again, "Who is above all, God"? (Romans 9:5)
   
   
4. Homily XIX on Romans – For when he tells of any great and unutterable thing of this kind, he ends in wonder with a doxology. And this he does in regard to the Son also. For in that passage also he went on to the very same thing that he does here. “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all God blessed forever.”
   
   
5. Homily Homily XXXIII on John 4:21, 22. He speaketh of His own Coming. Or rather, one would not be wrong in calling both these things “salvation” which He said was “of the Jews”; which Paul implied when he said, “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.” Seest thou how He commendeth the old Covenant, and showeth that it is the root of blessings, and that He is throughout not opposed to the Law, since He maketh the groundwork of all good things to come from the Jews?
   
   
6. Homily on Matthew 1:17,speaking of Christ's manifestation in the flesh:
   how “was the Word made flesh?” and how saith Paul to the Romans, “Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all?” Therefore that He was of us, and of our substance, and of the Virgin’s womb, is manifest from these things, and from others beside; but how, is not also manifest. Do not either thou then inquire; but receive what is revealed, and be not curious about what is kept secret.
   
   
7. Homily XVI on Romans And this is also the reason of his setting down such things as set forth God's gift, not such as were encomiums upon them. For the adoption came of His grace, and so too the glory, and the promises, and the Law. After taking all these things then into consideration, and reflecting how earnest God along with His Son, had been for their salvation, he lifts up his voice aloud, and says, Who is blessed forever. Amen. So himself offering up thanksgiving for all men unto the Only-Begotten of God.
   
   
8. Homily on Romans 9:5, quotation of the verse only:
   “To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the father’s, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Lastly, your "Homilies Against the Arians," which you accused me of not providing, is not a work of Chrysostom, but a subject heading from a modern book called Saint Chrysostom, his life and times.

I have no more than these. You could have simply asked me to provide what other quotations I might have, rather than impugning my credibility, accusing me of confirmation bias, and questioning my scholastic integrity. I would have just provided them.

Steven Avery said:
I plan to include those who do not quote Romans 9:5 in any way. That might include Gregory Nazianzen.

If there were only place in scripture, Romans 9:5, where such expressions were used, then this practice would be fine. But since there are three passages that contain roughly the same doxology, and two passages that use "over all" in connection to the noun "God," there's no way to bring any certainty to the practice unless the context clearly shows they have Romans 9:5 in view.

 

[Steven Avery]

No, I said I posted quotes that were relevant to the discussion, that demonstrated how he understood the passage. You took that as above, and accused me of practicing confirmation bias and accused me of shoddy scholarship, and accused me of concealing information but then never pointed out what relevant information I was concealing.

How would I know which references you don't post because you don't think they match your theory of verse understanding?

Why not just change your approach?
If it relates to Romans 9:5 include the quote.

 

[Steven Avery]

You, on the other hand, have omitted things contextually (e.g., Chrysostom's homilies on Titus), and even where you "requoted" my passages you removed relevant context (in this thread).

Please .. stop fabricating.
We are talking Romans 9:5.

1) If I had a quote from Chrysostom from a Titus homily, I placed in on the page. Simply, I placed everything I had on the page. In one case, you suggested it should be knocked off, the Arian one, and I thanked you. This helped you to go from 4 to 8.

2) I said specifically I was trying to bolster up the quotes, sometimes yours had more, sometimes less, they could even be both, stronger on one side, weaker than the others. There was no rush on that, I was not putting out a finished work product.

3) My only incomplete ones are on Augustine, it will take another 20-30 minutes, so I made a note there.

If there were only place in scripture, Romans 9:5, where such expressions were used, then this practice would be fine. But since there are three passages that contain roughly the same doxology, and two passages that use "over all" in connection to the noun "God," there's no way to bring any certainty to the practice unless the context clearly shows they have Romans 9:5 in view.

Sure, if it looks like it might come from Romans 9:5 it would be better to be included, but if it is iffy, a note can simply be added (might be verse....). If it were not included it would not be a disaster, if it was too much up in the air. However, in general Christ/God over all quotes, in the context of a writer looking for Deity verses about Jesus, look to be Romans 9:5.

No, I said I posted quotes that were relevant to the discussion, that demonstrated how he understood the passage.

This was fishy. Obviously the ones where the person says "Christ is God over all" are the simplest to "demonstrate how he understood". Thus it looked like cherry picking.

Since you seem to be saying that your actual reality was different, I will happily "apologize" for coming to what was the obvious conclusion at the time.

Meanwhile, you can apologize for whatever was behind your Chrysostom Titus homily comment above. And the other comment was wacky too, since I was working my own material and marking yours as 1-2-3-4. Thus allowing a better count of 8. (Actually 7, but one has 2 sections.)

 

[Steven Avery]

Homily on Romans 9:5, quotation of the verse only:
“To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises;

That might have been the book editor. I decided to omit it, for that reason.

 

[Steven Avery]

Look at Professor Barry Hofstetter trying to defend the grammar of the short corruption earthly witnesses text. It was very easy to expose his fake arguments. (Well, easy, it did take a little time to dissect his fakery.) His defense was the same as yours, and similarly worthless.

After all, he is probably a better Greek-geek than you.

Why does he blunder?

It is all rather easy to understand.

 

[Brianrw]

Please .. stop fabricating.

I'm not. You removed Chrysostom's comment that Paul uses the term "God" and "Lord" interchangeably of Father and Son from my first reference, which is relevant context.

This was fishy. Obviously the ones where the person says "Christ is God over all" are the simplest to "demonstrate how he understood". Thus it looked like cherry picking.

As though he understands it a different way in another place?

Since you seem to be saying that your actual reality was different, I will happily "apologize" for coming to what was the obvious conclusion at the time.

I graciously accept your happy non-apology apology. Next time ask if you want more information.

Meanwhile, you can apologize for whatever was behind your Chrysostom Titus homily comment above. And the other comment was wacky too, since I was working my own material and marking yours as 1-2-3-4.

I wholly and sincerely apologize. I hope you will forgive my misunderstanding.

Steven Avery said:
After all, he is probably a better Greek-geek than you.

Why does he blunder?

It is all rather easy to understand.

I'm absolutely not a fan of Greek-know-it-alls who don't know a shred of Greek (even basics like adjectives) yet otherwise think they are in a position to criticize those who do. You're bearing false witness in that way. First learn the language, then argue from a position of strength if there really is one.

 

[Steven Avery]

As though he understands it a different way in another place?

To find that out is why you want all the references, not just confirmation bias choices.

 

[Steven Avery]

I wholly and sincerely apologize. I hope you will forgive my misunderstanding.

Very much appreciated and accepted.

I'll broaden my "non-apology" to an attempt to be slower to critique that type of stuff.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm absolutely not a fan of Greek-know-it-alls who don't know a shred of Greek (even basics like adjectives) yet otherwise think they are in a position to criticize those who do. You're bearing false witness in that way. First learn the language, then argue from a position of strength if there really is one.

Why are you bearing false witness?
Without even a word about the Hofstetter claim and my critique (supported by three fluent native Greek speakers, two in Greece.)

If you came up to speed, you might actually help defend a critical, beautiful AV text.

1 John 5:7 (KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

I think you actually did defend the AV grammar back around 2001-2002.

Now, you stand with Hofstetter? Also on 1 Timothy 3:16?

 

[Brianrw]

I think you actually did defend the AV grammar back around 2001-2002.

On 1 John 5:7? I still would but it's not fresh in my mind right now, the Greek speakers would be interested if you can message to me. Regarding the passage as genuine, the most likely date such a passage would have stopped being read in churches would be during the Sabellian heresies. There's too many Latin forms for it to be of Latin origin. It's what we find in independent translations.

My position on 1 Timothy 3:16 has never changed. As for Hofstetter, I'm not a part of his group, so I can't see anything.

Why are you bearing false witness?
Without even a word about the Hofstetter claim and my critique (supported by three fluent native Greek speakers, two in Greece.)

I've told you the truth about the Greek of Romans 9:5, and the English. And the English, Greek, and Latin authors. I even told you to ask around, check with your Greek friend.

I don't feel you are in the position to criticize the Greek of others, even those you oppose, because you have no sure foundation for it. It is a very careless and harmful thing to do. A lot of problems are caused by people who can get on a Greek parser and think they can read it like English, when it can't be. And when corrected, they double down hard and form arguments even worse than they had before. Don't betray trust people may put on you.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried asking you many times how well you know Greek, but you never answered. Over the course of the discussion, someone messaged me concerning various observations of your conduct in other forums, and part of it was about you sounding off about Greek, but never owning up to not knowing it. I quote, "he virtually never admits he doesn't know Greek . . . When confronted on this, the most he'll cop to is, 'I've never claimed to know Greek.'" Feel free to correct them below.

Most people are afraid to admit they are wrong because they feel they will lose respect, when the opposite is true. Not admitting you don't know diminishes your standing. Pretending you know diminishes your standing. Being honest, taking responsibility, and sticking to what you can understand is what will earn you respect.

 

[Steven Avery]

I don't feel you are in the position to criticize the Greek of others, even those you oppose, because you have no sure foundation for it. It is a very careless and harmful thing to do. A lot of problems are caused by people who can get on a Greek parser and think they can read it like English, when it can't be. And when corrected, they double down hard and form arguments even worse than they had before. Don't betray trust people may put on you.

I remember answering it, and told you I have no Greek background.

Many issues are exceedingly easy, I learn and study and understand, and refer to native Greek-fluent friends. In such cases I get involved, when the AV is being wrongfully attacked, because the AV defenders often seem at times not up to par on the issues. (Also they can be blind-sided by their doctrinal preferences to make weak arguments, like the hendiadys attempt.) So I try to help get them involved. An example is that Nick Sayers has done a fantastic job, making the direct contact with Georgios Babiniotis, confirming our pure Bible text with the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

The contras are often defending errors in Greek that I am involved in refuting, the classic case is the heavenly witnesses, where they want to claim the short text corruption solecism is just fine. So rather than deal with the substance they go into this harangue, often in back channels to poison the well. Bill Brown on BVDB is the main attacker, and he is a vulgar, sick man. His writing is non-Christian. (Except once when he apologized, but he quickly ran from his apology. This is all available in history. I try to avoid repeating his vulgarities.) A couple of individuals who should know better are weak-spined, and allow his vulgar rants, and try to parrot his arguments.

And if you find ANY error I actually make in Greek, not immediately acknowledged, share away. You can even start a special thread. Leave aside the Granville Sharp verses and Romans 9:5, unless you see me making a simple factual error.

Most all my discussions that involve Greek involve the following verses where the AV text is attacked.

Granville Sharp (see the title of his book)
Romans 9:5 - all here
heavenly witnesses
1 Timothy 3:16
John 1:18 - only-begotten, using superb references online, this goes hand-in-hand with showing the CT textual corruption

Maybe there are others, but they do not come to mind.

=====================

All of your whining above is irrelevant, until you actually come up to speed on the heavenly witnesses debate, with the solecism in the short text. You look very foolish defending the blunders of Barry Hofstter and James Snapp and Bill Brown. (They have all made similar blunders, and they are all documented.)

=====================

 

[Steven Avery]

I've told you the truth about the Greek of Romans 9:5, and the English. And the English, Greek, and Latin authors. I even told you to ask around, check with your Greek friend.

And I paid careful attention. Learned a lot. Enjoyed the studies. Tried to pin you down on giving a full Greek text which would have the meaning which we see in the English AV text, without a comma after God, keeping the natural association of God and blessed ....

(Christ is) God blessed for ever.

And your position, claiming the AV simple reading is not matching the TR, is refuted here:

Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides!
Post # 27

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/romans-9-5-trichotomy-interpretation-identity-high-christology-unitarian-errors-on-both-sides.2285/page-2#post-9230

 

[Brianrw]

I remember answering it, and told you I have no Greek background.

You didn't, at least not that I saw. But I appreciate your honesty here.

I get involved, when the AV is being wrongfully attacked

But I didn't actually attack the AV. In my view, you're the one harming the text by breaking the cardinal rule of keeping the text in its historical grammatical perspective. And in doing so, you are (as Beza warns against Erasmus in his footnote to Titus 2:13) essentially cutting off not only the hands and feet of the living, but also of the dead, who used these passages in their fight against the heretics. In your zeal to defend the passage as you thought it should be read, you are attacking the very rules that support how it was translated by the learned men of the AV.

E.g., the rule of the article. You're biggest tell is in 2 Peter 1:1, where the AV translators moved the pronoun before "Saviour." In the Greek, it is actually attached to "God" (i.e., "our God"). They deliberately were using "God and our Saviour" to speak of Christ because of the way the Socinians and Unitarians were expounding the text. Otherwise, you'll be forced to admit they mistranslated the passage--which I don't believe is something either you or I believe. Besides that, the very footnotes in the Greek text they were using mentions in these places that the one article in common between the two nouns means one subject, Christ, is spoken of.

And if you find ANY error I actually make in Greek, not immediately acknowledged, share away.

I have. But you keep calling me a liar.

Leave aside the Granville Sharp verses and Romans 9:5, unless you see me making a simple factual error.

You are making a factual error in Romans 9:5, namely in that you're "translating" the adjective in a way the Greek construction does not allow.

 

[Steven Avery]

On 1 John 5:7? I still would but it's not fresh in my mind right now,

BVDB - Early evidence, Quotes, 1 John 5:7, etc... - April, May 2001
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...rly-evidence-quotes-1-john-5-7-etc-t2205.html

BVDB - The Trinity - May, 2002
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/the-trinity-t2632.html

You properly refute the Gary Hudson errors in his paper on the grammar. (I have to check though if you hit the core problem.)
Ironically, we see essentially the same errors today from Hofstetter, Snapp and Brown.

There may be more, but those two threads have lots of stuff.

 

[Steven Avery]

On 1 John 5:7? I still would but it's not fresh in my mind right now, the Greek speakers would be interested if you can message to me.

Not sure what you want to be messaged. There are three Greek fluent gentlemen who have helped.

And I gave you the semi-active thread discussing Georgios Babionitis. You do not seem to have done any study.

Facebook - Biblical Greek Studies of the New Testament
https://www.facebook.com/groups/biblicalgreekstudies/posts/2051081548348955/
Greek linguist Professor Georgios Babiniotis explains why the earthly witnesses verse 1 John 5:8 requires the heavenly witnesses 1 John 5:7.

George P, native Greek fluent, has been helpful. He switched from supporting the CT here, when he looked closely at the grammar.

Remember, you have already taken a stand supporting Barry Hofsteter, despite his obvious errors.

Regarding the passage as genuine, the most likely date such a passage would have stopped being read in churches would be during the Sabellian heresies. There's too many Latin forms for it to be of Latin origin. It's what we find in independent translations.

There was likely a major dropping of the text in those controversies. I have a special page on that issue.

Pure Bible Forum
scholars theorizing that the Sabellian controversies contributed to the Greek ms line drop -
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...es-contributed-to-the-greek-ms-line-drop.671/

This comes up in looking at Eusebius ad Marcellum and also Grantley McDonald's writing.